Idiot stumbles upon true cause of racial tension

I must congratulate Dominic Jones on his inspiring and educational letter. It was only after I overcame my initial resentment that I realized the keen insight hidden in Jones' otherwise irrational diatribe.

It was with brilliant indignation that Mr. Jones charged Arianna Davis with overestimating diversity at Penn State. Armed only with vague references to past discrimination, Jones pinpointed the source of Davis' shortsightedness: closet racism. And while others may have balked in the face of such an underwhelming and specious argument, Jones boldly expanded the charge to include not only the entire "majority" student body, but society as a whole!

Mr. Jones may be disappointed if his inflammatory rhetoric doesn't induce the white/heterosexual student body into the self-loathing that he apparently believes is key to achieving diversity. He did, however, succeed in showing us all that prejudice is indeed alive and well at Penn State.

Hillary's faulty campaign

After reading Justin Silverman's assessment of Sen. Hillary Clinton's leadership style, I tried to recall when "practical" and "efficient" replaced "insincere" and "calculating" in the dictionary.

Sen. Clinton's ambition for the White House has rendered her incapable of taking a concrete, reliable stand on any major issue confronting America today. She refuses to take responsibility for her vote in favor of the Iraq war, and her propensity for anticipating her audiences further reveals her disingenuous, poll-driven campaign strategy.

Sen. Clinton's efforts to woo centrists while placating the more liberal elements of her party have earned her distrust and skepticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Despite all of her careful planning, she comes across as just another business-as-usual, two-faced politician.

Another call for PSU censorship

Shane St. Esprit’s letter should serve as a poignant reminder of how casually some of us would surrender our free speech rights, and the hypocrisy of censorship carried out under the pretext of tolerance.

St. Esprit brands the Willard Preacher’s message “hate” and suggests that such an arbitrary label is sufficient grounds to censor Cattell and his associates. When stripped of its copious use of the word, however, St. Esprit’s argument boils down to one simple, alarming statement: unpopular viewpoints are not welcome at Penn State.

If Mr. St. Esprit is concerned about the university being deemed “second-rate”, perhaps he should stop asking it to deny people their constitutionally protected rights.

Chicago wage law misguided, illogical

The rationale behind Chicago’s new anti-Wal-Mart ordinance (to say nothing of the Collegian Board of Opinion’s defense thereof) is at best misguided, and at worst unconstitutional.

First of all, what defines a “living wage”? If $10 per hour is the threshold between fair and oppressive, why shouldn’t all businesses be forced to pay a “living wage”? Why should smaller business be allowed to get away with subjugating their employees?

That brings me to the matter of equal protection under the law. Though I am not a lawyer, I don’t believe the constitution allows federal, state, or local entities to selectively apply enacted law—in this case Illinois’ current $6.50 per hour minimum wage.

By abandoning the city instead of suing it, the intended targets of this ordinance will send a much more demonstrative message to Chicago. The law will not benefit a single worker, and in the end the city council will have denied their impoverished constituents thousands of much-needed jobs.

Economic benefits don't justify illegal immigration

Perhaps some perspective might encourage the Collegian opinion staff to re-evaluate their stance on illegal immigration.

The board suggests that the economy "would collapse without (illegal) immigrants"; that the low cost of goods and services illegal immigrants provide justifies their meager wages and deplorable working conditions.

The Confederacy made the same argument against the abolition of slavery.